ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith made headlines this week for his bold confrontation on “The View,” targeting Sunny Hostin over a troubling political moment involving a group known as the “Seditious Six.” This group, which includes notable figures like Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Sen. Mark Kelly, recently released a video urging military personnel to disregard “illegal orders” from their superiors. Smith did not hold back, especially when critiquing Kelly’s involvement. He made it clear that such public rhetoric aimed at active-duty service members is irresponsible and dangerous.
“Respectfully, senator, what the hell are you doing?” Smith asked in a replayed clip, his frustration evident. “Looking into the camera and telling military men and women to ignore the commander in chief? How dare you?” His passionate remarks underscored the seriousness of the issue. Smith’s direct approach highlighted an essential point: words spoken by those with military experience carry significant weight and can have serious repercussions.
Hostin, perhaps taken aback by Smith’s pointed critique, attempted to defend the senators’ actions. She opened the segment with an almost cordial tone, stating, “You know I like you, right?” But the friendliness didn’t last long. Citing a past comment from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—who suggested there must be consequences for unlawful orders—Hostin pressed Smith to reconsider his stance. “Let me just remind you that [Hegseth] said… the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” she recounted, trying to frame the senators’ video as a necessary discussion about civic duty.
Smith, however, was not swayed. His reply, “I’m not changing a thing,” reflected both his conviction and frustration. When Hostin accused him of being “loud and wrong,” Smith retorted, “You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine.” Here, he made it clear that he wasn’t merely debating political correctness; he was defending the integrity of military command and protocol.
What’s critical to note is that Smith, despite throwing a jab at Hegseth’s qualifications, effectively emphasized the crux of the issue. Kelly, a retired Navy pilot and former astronaut, has a unique responsibility when addressing service members. His words aren’t just casual advice; they can fundamentally influence morale and operational respect for authority within military ranks. Yet Hostin dismissed these implications, framing the senators’ remarks as a benign lesson in civic duty. Urging troops to question their superiors publicly may veer dangerously toward undermining the chain of command.
This exchange brings to light not only the tension between media personalities discussing military matters, but also the real-world consequences that can arise from political discourse. Smith’s outcry does not merely reflect a disagreement with specific individuals; it underscores a profound concern for military integrity and the potential ramifications of careless rhetoric. In a climate where words can incite action and influence behavior, the responsibility carried by those in positions of influence is heavy. Political theater may entertain, but it often distracts from the grave realities faced by those who serve.
In examining this exchange, a clear message emerges: while debates about civic duty are essential, they should never come at the expense of undermining the authority and respect owed to military command. Smith’s perspective serves as a necessary reminder that in matters of national security and military order, clarity and respect for the roles involved should always prevail.
"*" indicates required fields
